Alvaro –
FWIW, I agree w John here.
There are many examples – to cite a few:
Sub-TLVs for TLVs 22, 23, 25, 141, 222, and 223 (Extended IS reachability, IS
Neighbor Attribute, L2 Bundle Member Attributes, inter-AS reachability
information, MT-ISN, and MT IS Neighbor Attribute TLVs)
…
Reference
[RFC5305][RFC5316][RFC7370][RFC8668]
RFC 8868 is not marked as updating RFC 7370.
RFC 7370 is not marked as updating RFC 5316/RFC 5305.
Sub-TLVs for TLVs 135, 235, 236, and 237 (Extended IP reachability, MT IP.
Reach, IPv6 IP. Reach, and MT IPv6 IP. Reach TLVs)
…
Reference
[RFC5305][RFC7370]
Again, RFC7370 is not marked as updating RFC 5305.
I think it is sufficient to request that IANA add the new RFC to the list of
References for the modified registry.
Les
From: Lsr <lsr-boun...@ietf.org> On Behalf Of John Scudder
Sent: Thursday, May 13, 2021 11:00 AM
To: Alvaro Retana <aretana.i...@gmail.com>
Cc: John Scudder via Datatracker <nore...@ietf.org>; Christian Hopps
<cho...@chopps.org>; lsr-cha...@ietf.org; The IESG <i...@ietf.org>;
draft-ietf-lsr-isis-srv6-extensi...@ietf.org; lsr@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Lsr] John Scudder's No Objection on
draft-ietf-lsr-isis-srv6-extensions-14: (with COMMENT)
On May 13, 2021, at 1:20 PM, Alvaro Retana
<aretana.i...@gmail.com<mailto:aretana.i...@gmail.com>> wrote:
This documents updates RFC 7370 by modifying an existing registry.
Also, this doesn’t seem to me like an update to RFC 7370. It’s normal for an
RFC to update an IANA registry, without saying it updates a previous RFC that
established that registry. I think the “updates” just confuses matters and
clutters things up, and should be removed.
In this case the document is not only registering a value. It is
changing the name of the registry, adding an extra column, and
updating all the other entries (§11.1.*). The Updates tag is used
because it significantly changes the registry.
Still seems unnecessary to me, registries are moving targets, citation of all
the relevant RFCs in their references should be sufficient. So, the registry
would be updated so that it cited both this spec and 7370, and someone wanting
to know “how did the registry get this way?” would be able to work it out.
I’m not going to fight about it; the “updates” is not very harmful. I say “not
very” because the diligent reader might be led to think they need to go read
RFC 7370 in order to properly understand this spec, and waste some time
realizing that isn’t true. Since for better or worse we don’t have a firm
definition of when we do, and don’t, use “updates”, it comes down to a matter
of personal taste in the end.
$0.02,
—John
_______________________________________________
Lsr mailing list
Lsr@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
